General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Right BAITS the Left To Turn Against Hillary
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=0This should sound familiar to many here.
I cant copy and paste any of it for some reason.
REMEMBER, this is happening everywhere. It is being done for a reason!
Marr
(20,317 posts)They'd be fools not to-- why is that at all surprising? It's just another reason Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate.
MineralMan
(146,350 posts)That's what I've found.
Marr
(20,317 posts)MineralMan
(146,350 posts)Interesting.
Dramatic Irony
noun
1.
irony that is inherent in speeches or a situation of a drama and is understood by the audience but not grasped by the characters in the play.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Look-- Democrats could, and did, happily point out that Romney was not a Christian Fundamentalist. It didn't make them fundies themselves-- they were highlighting a trait in the opposition's candidate that would weaken them with supporters. That's what is happening here, and it shouldn't be surprising.
I would really expect the self-described 'reality-based community' to grasp this point a bit more readily, but apparently all it can do is retreat behind veiled insults.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I try to avoid these intramural or internecine pissing matches...
The OP cited an article that the right is trying to turn the left against Clinton because it inures to their benefit. Please re-read your first post in light of the argument put forward in the article.
Marr
(20,317 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)That pointing out he wasn't a Fundy or a Fundy Come Lately would hurt him with Evangelicals but I never saw that argument really made...He did have to defend his Mormonism from charges by some that Mormonism is just weird.
Marr
(20,317 posts)mention it in oblique ways, talking about his 'strong support Utah', and things like that. You know, the kind of thing that evangelicals would pick up on without being beat over the head. Just seemed like smart politics to me.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)You are stating that the vulnerability of HRC being a corporatist is a real vulnerability for her among the left and if she wan't they (the right) couldn't exploit it. For the sake of our conversation I will stipulate that. But why are the Republicans playing that angle now, before the primaries begin and not during the general election ? i would argue and I assume the author of the article would say that is because they believe she is the strongest general election candidate, the candidate they least want to run against, and they want to kill her candidacy in the crib.
If I am a Republican and I feel I can beat Hillary easily in the G E I am going to lay off her in the hope she gets the nomination. The last thing I am not going to do is attack her or get others to attack her now. I want the candidate in the General Election I can most easily beat...The Pugs talk more about Hillary then they talk about themselves.
Marr
(20,317 posts)and would like to kill her candidacy now. I'm sure they think a fight with someone like Sanders would be a cakewalk. But then again, they're sort of known for being wrong.
Also, just because they're using this ploy now doesn't mean they won't also use it after her nomination, were she to win. And I wouldn't discount this attack as being effective with working class Republicans, either. I mean, again, they're kind of known for accepting absurd, contradictory arguments and having a seemingly genetic immunity to hypocrisy. It's not hard to imagine a Republican attacking Hillary for being a Wall Street shill. They've held themselves up as the defenders of Social Security in recent years, after all.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)eloydude
(376 posts)But I expect PUMA's to roll around again once Hillary is discarded like a used cardboard..
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,540 posts)PADemD
(4,482 posts)The millions of people who did not vote for Hillary in 2008 and then had to put up with the Pumas would not have to be baited to turn against Hillary 2016.
MineralMan
(146,350 posts)lately, all regarding Hillary Clinton. It's a thing. These days, I'm checking links first, before reading OPs. It's a good idea.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Facts.
It's a thing.
MineralMan
(146,350 posts)bias. You bet. We all know that sources slant their reporting, based on their particular bias. So, when someone selects a right-wing source and quotes it on DU, one thing's certain: That source is not presenting the facts along. Instead, it's presenting an argument with a strong bias.
That some people choose to find the things they quote on right-wing sources is indicative of something. When it happens again and again, that something is quite clear.
Of course, not everyone recognizes right-wing sources. Others don't bother to even look at the source of a post. Even fewer actually click through to read the complete piece or check out the author for credibility
So, everyone agrees that the sun will rise. What that means for the weather that day, though, is open to interpretation.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Bwahahahaha! I hope that is not official campaign blather. Or any kind of weird strategy.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)If you oppose Hillary's positions, you are a RW puppet apparently.
djean111
(14,255 posts)I think the fantasy of having all Democrats swoon and say oh, don't bother with a primary, why waste the money or give the GOP ammunition, is still on life support.
As if the GOP could never come up with anything anti-Hillary all by themselves. And they have been preparing their ammo for years and years, methinks. But - declaring anything at all critical of Hillary as RW, in a PRIMARY, is really reaching.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The left does embrace Hillary.
http://theweek.com/articles/556175/hillary-clinton-fewer-problems-democratic-base-than-might-think
Its probably a better idea to get your facts from scientific polls rather than posters on an anonymous message board.
djean111
(14,255 posts)by the RW. OP title. By your reckoning, this OP is just wrong and a bit silly, then. Well, yeah it IS wrong and silly.
The entire Left does not embrace any one politician, by the way. I do not consider polls at all when I decide who to support, either.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Actually mean something. To prove the point, pew actually took a college professor who isn't running for anything and added her to their favorability poll. Her unfavorable was higher than her favorable. Her undecided was only one digit, which is a joke since no one has ever heard of her.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)encourage further research on other candidates and I still return to my original decision of voting and supporting Hillary. We know there are RW trolls here on DU and then to see DU member repeating the same talking points the RW throws out is a concern. I understand disliking Hillary on some of the positions she has taken, I don't agree on everything but I do know she has experience in foreign affairs and I think she will respond to national security issues. We do not live in a protected from all harm world, ergo, we need a president who does respond.
eloydude
(376 posts)What issues do you disagree with Bernie about?
I've been waiting over 12 hours for your answer...
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)time for badgering is over.
eloydude
(376 posts)I'd really like to know...
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)eloydude
(376 posts)All I asked was a question that you refuse to answer...
That's called evading the question.
I DONT KNOW why you are against Bernie. "Unelectable" and "socialist" are thrown out and already debunked. What is your problem with Bernie's current stances?
If you don't know - just say so. "I DONT KNOW" or "I'M A THIRD WAYER AND HAVE TO STAY WITH HILLARY NO MATTER WHAT" - would suffice.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They can't find any dirt on him. It's a form of cognitive dissonance.
eloydude
(376 posts)are not of our Democratic kind. They are right of center, and that's where Prez O (with his TPP atrocity) and Hillary is sitting at right now.
These are the same people who will not change their mind, and would rather stick with the "winner" or "coronation" of another New Democrat, which has had massive losses, and will continue to bleed until progressives have taken over the Democratic Party and kick the Third Way or New Democrats out of our Party and get them to either create a new group of right-wing New Democratic and mainstream Republican and call themselves "Right-Wing" party.
It's time to go back to the mainstream Democratic values, and even the "fringe left" has to pull the Party to stop them from favoring the 1%. If they do, let them join the 1%'s favorite party - the Republican Party.
One other interesting observation that I notice is a common theme: "Bernie's unelectable" "Bernie's a socialist!" and they have been both debunked. Bernie's numbers will not only continue to rise, but as we get ready for the summer, Bernie's going to be busy hitting the road, getting to know the ordinary people, while Hillary continues to be shielded over the summer, going only to handpicked spots and keeping the unruly liberals away from her nomination process, with the complicit help of the media who wants a Hillary vs Whoever_is_the_Republican_Sacrifical_Lamb_Du_Jour, which isn't happening.
It'll be Bernie at the end, and his arguments and passion will win over a lot of Americans who are sick and tired of the same fucking shit for the last 40 years that the Republicans have started. It's time to close this disgusting chapter, and move on with something else that will work.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I just took the Political Compass survey:
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.56
https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-5.25&soc=-8.56
Who do you believe I am supporting?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)didn't force Hillary to appear at a fund-raiser with a lobbyist from Keystone by twisting her arm. If what the groups are saying is factual, if Hillary is indeed doing those things, well that's on her no one else. Politics is a dirty game, if they have ammo they will use it. Getting CU money out of politics will clean this up. Republicans are dirty pigs, democrats running for office should know that and not give them ammo.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)and I have lots of criticisms about her views; however, if she's the nominee, I will vote for her.
I felt the same about her husband back in '92.
So the Right can bait away all they want like they did back in the '90s. I know what's at stake, which is why I want someone like Sanders at least bringing my views to the discussion; but while I may not like Clinton all that much, I believe her presidency would be far and away better than what the Koch's darling boy, Walker, would offer, for example.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Before I do that, if this thread is considered inappropriate for some reason, then I am completely lost.
I would think we here would want to be aware of what is going on, who is doing it and why.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)which you know since you responded to at least one previous thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251407942#top
It could be seen as inappropriate if it's not really about making anyone aware of anything, and instead is really a campaign to smear anyone who criticizes Hillary as being a tool of the right. Using spam techniques makes it look more like the latter.
Response to Enrique (Reply #20)
randys1 This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They cannot effectively oppose any of his ideas, so they do this instead.
Not a strong selling point for Hillary.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Yes, we won't vote for a Republican, but if the Democratic Party really wants to have its constituency to help them GOTV and have less risks of losing to Republicans, they will be better off if the candidate that wins the nomination is more of a choice of the 99%er constituency of voters in its party and not just the 1% "money" constituents that they've sought to please too much over the previous years.
People don't just GOTV because they are told to do so. They need to be MOTIVATED to do so. They need to feel the party is working for THEM and the vast majority of Americans that they want to appeal to, not just for the powerful elements of government that "might be nicer" to them, based on who's funding their campaigns versus the other guys.
In my book, Bernie is that guy that will MOTIVATE Democrats to GOTV if he were to win. Especially the more that hear him both out on the stump and his increased visibility in a campaign talking to them via other means.
To ask the 99% of us to go out and help GOTV is especially a lot harder when more of us are working far more hours and have lost so much in terms of savings and assets over the last few years. A candidate has to make it even more worth our while now in this day and age than in years past, when people were better off before.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)against Hillary so the RIGHT WILL TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE
is a waste of time here, I truly believe that now.
Have a great day....
You wont see me talking about this anymore, there is no point.
From now on casserole recipes is all you are getting out of me.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But of course, I'm not taking exception to the NYT article. I'm taking exception to you trying to smear the left on DU with this particular brush. We're not a bunch of idiots, despite what you may think.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You guys need some new material.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)because it's been posted, and debunked, before.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6683989
Interestingly, the OP deleted her OP after many responses. Of course, it showed up again here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026688616
The third time around, it's still not any more legitimate than the first. I'll go ahead and cut and paste my response again, and leave you to browse through the rest.
I am well to the left of HRC. And yet, I haven't read a single post on social media about her...because I don't use social media for those purposes. I haven't heard a single thing from "the right," because the only time I listen to "the right" is when my custodian at work gets going, and he's easy to deflate.
It's amazing how they've "baited" me.
I'm sure if it weren't for their "baiting," I'd be thrilled with her.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The NY Times article refers to this article from "America Rising PAC" a conservative opposition research PAC:
Clinton Being Hosted By Former Fundraiser, Former Keystone Lobbyist, And Now Keystone Investor
[link:https://www.americarisingpac.org/clinton-hosted-former-fundraiser-former-keystone-lobbyist-now-keystone-investor/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=20150121_ARPAC-p-clinton-being-hosted-by-former-fundraiser,-former-keystone-lobbyist,-and-now-|
New York Times article below:
WASHINGTON A Twitter post recently caught the eye of Bill McKibben, the environmental advocate and godfather of the Keystone XL pipeline protests. It included an image from The Simpsons showing Homer and his family basking in mountains of cash in their living room, followed by a report on Hillary Rodham Clintons appearing at a fund-raiser with a lobbyist from the Keystone fight.
Mr. McKibbens environmental organization, 350.org, has been trying to raise awareness about the ties it sees between lobbyists for the oil pipeline and former aides to Mrs. Clinton. He promptly shared the post with his 150,000 Twitter followers, and the reaction was immediate.
You expect different from a Clinton? one person responded on Twitter. And from another: Did you need another reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton? Lost in the response was the source of the offending tweet. It was not another environmental organization or even a liberal challenger to Mrs. Clinton. Instead, it was a conservative group called America Rising PAC, which is trying, with laserlike focus, to weaken the woman who almost everyone believes will be the Democratic Partys candidate for president in 2016.
For months now, America Rising has sent out a steady stream of posts on social media attacking Mrs. Clinton, some of them specifically designed to be spotted, and shared, by liberals. The posts highlight critiques of her connections to Wall Street and the Clinton Foundation and feature images of Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, interspersed with cartoon characters and pictures of Kevin Spacey, who plays the villain in House of Cards. And as they are read and shared, an anti-Clinton narrative is reinforced.
The Tweet referred to and the image:
Clinton Being Hosted By Former Fundraiser, Former Keystone Lobbyist,...
Not only is the bank Hillary Clinton is giving paid speeches to under investigation for tax evasion, its board member is a Keystone XL pipeline investor.
https://twitter.com/AmericaRising/status/557972416995946496?lang=en
Interesting times when a conservative PAC is able to list all the legitimate reasons most of us want Bernie Sanders.
The fact that it's a RW source doesn't change the facts.
Gothmog
(145,839 posts)11 Bravo
(23,928 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Is there any doubt they use each other to attack her?
Sid
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,508 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)The real left has been against hillary for a while now
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And that any opposition to Hillary is essentially right-wing
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)reasons for not voting for Hillary and they have nothing to do with anyone else. Policy positions and voting records is how I decide who I will or won't vote for.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)You expect different from a Clinton? one person responded on Twitter. And from another: Did you need another reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton? Lost in the response was the source of the offending tweet. It was not another environmental organization or even a liberal challenger to Mrs. Clinton. Instead, it was a conservative group called America Rising PAC, which is trying, with laserlike focus, to weaken the woman who almost everyone believes will be the Democratic Partys candidate for president in 2016.
Hillary Clinton en route to a fundraiser run by a key Keystone investor/lobbyist? One wishes it were not so... https://t.co/VWWf7GpeNJ
Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) Jan. 21, 2015
For months now, America Rising has sent out a steady stream of posts on social media attacking Mrs. Clinton, some of them specifically designed to be spotted, and shared, by liberals. The posts highlight critiques of her connections to Wall Street and the Clinton Foundation and feature images of Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, interspersed with cartoon characters and pictures of Kevin Spacey, who plays the villain in House of Cards. And as they are read and shared, an anti-Clinton narrative is reinforced.
America Rising is not the only conservative group attacking Mrs. Clinton from the left. Another is American Crossroads, the group started by Karl Rove, which has been sending out its own digital content, including one ad using a speech Ms. Warren gave at the New Populism Conference in Washington last May.
Powerful interests have tried to capture Washington and rig the system in their favor, intones Ms. Warren, as images of Mrs. Clinton with foreign leaders flash by.
More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=0
This has gone on non-stop with Obama as well, since 2009 the internet has been flooded with sidebar and banner ads with loaded questions and ugly pics. Many in the form of polls that can in no way give a fair answer. (And I don't answer them as they are data mines.) Even if one supports the Democrat, the slime remains and causes self-censoring.
Same is being done to HRC. The impression is left subconsciously that there is something wrong with them, or that the majority think so. This is manufacturing consent for a GOP victory, no matter if it really happens or not. Some districts were declared in 2012 long before polls closed. And the GOP won those, didn't even have to count the votes.
The media was complicit in the scam, with so much negative coverage it seemed plausible. So are these guys. It's disappointing to see people not see through it.
RandySF, I highlight what I want to post even if it doesn't show as highlighted and copy it. If that doesn't work, I put select all and copy, then put it on a text document and edit the unwanted paragraphs, excess websited addresses, ads, etc.
Give that a try. Good post.